Success Story: Overcoming Criminality Leads to Express Entry Success

Another Express Entry Success

We successfully argued that the traffic incident, which occurred outside Canada, does not make our client criminally inadmissible or constitute an agreement violation.

After reviewing our legal submissions, the IRCC overturned the original finding inadmissibility, and our client's CEC permanent‑residence application was approved.

Case Background

We prepared the client’s Express Entry registration and permanent‑residence (PR) application. He supplied police certificates from the two countries where he had lived, both of which were clean and showed no criminal record.

After submitting the application, IRCC issued a procedural‑fairness letter stating that he was deemed criminally inadmissible and therefore ineligible for permanent residence. The notice left him panicked and confused.

Issues at Hand

During IRCC’s independent background check it discovered that, while my client was residing abroad, he was stopped by police for allegedly cycling under the influence of alcohol. He received a ticket, paid the fine and, according to the local court record, was required to appear for a hearing in which the judge could have imposed additional sanctions (e.g., community service). Because he failed to attend, the matter remained technically pending. After locating the full police and court documents, my client travelled to the jurisdiction, resolved the outstanding issue and obtained a formal closure statement.

Legal Analysis and Submissions

My task now is to neutralise the adverse effect of that incident on his Canadian permanent‑resident (PR) application. The legal framework is set out in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), Part 1, Division 4 (Inadmissibility), specifically Section 36, which distinguishes between serious criminality and criminality. The key question is whether the conduct would constitute an indictable offence if it had occurred in Canada.

  1. Nature of the conduct – The police officer’s suspicion was based solely on observation; no breath‑test or blood test was administered, and no measurable blood‑alcohol concentration was recorded. The only evidence of intoxication is my client’s own admission that he had consumed a can of beer before mounting his bicycle. The officer issued an oral warning and a ticket for a regulatory breach; no criminal charge (e.g., driving while impaired) was laid.

  2. Comparison with Canadian law – Under the Criminal Code of Canada, a conviction for “driving while impaired” requires proof of a blood‑alcohol level exceeding the statutory limit (0.08 g/100 mL) or a refusal to provide a sample, together with a demonstrated inability to operate a motor vehicle safely. Cycling is not a “motor vehicle” under the Code, and the absence of a breath‑test or any quantified BAC means the conduct would not satisfy the elements of an indictable offence such as Section 253(1) (dangerous operation of a motor vehicle) or Section 254(1) (impaired operation of a motor vehicle). Consequently, the incident would fall outside the scope of criminal liability in Canada.

  3. Procedural fairness and proportionality – Even assuming the conduct were classified as a regulatory infraction, the IRPA allows discretion where the individual’s overall contribution to Canada outweighs the seriousness of the breach. My client has demonstrated substantial ties to Canada (employment, community involvement, tax compliance) and the incident resulted only in a modest monetary penalty abroad, with no conviction or custodial sentence.

Conclusion – Based on the lack of a criminal charge, the non‑applicability of Canadian motor‑vehicle offences to a cyclist, and the disproportionate nature of the penalty relative to the alleged conduct, the incident does not meet the threshold for criminal inadmissibility under IRPA § 36. Accordingly, I have prepared a written submission that:

  • Enumerates the factual and legal reasons why the client should not be deemed criminally inadmissible;
  • Directly challenges IRCC’s reliance on the pending foreign matter;
  • Provides a comparative analysis showing that, if the same facts occurred in Canada, they would not constitute an offence under the Criminal Code; and
  • Highlights the client’s positive contributions and ties to Canada, supporting a favourable exercise of discretion.

This submission seeks to have the adverse finding removed and to secure approval of the client’s CEC permanent‑residence application.

Positive Outcome

The response to the procedural fairness letter and the wellillustrated
comparison chart were submitted to the IRCC in the
summer of 2022, and in record time, the IRCC agreed, set aside the
initial determination, and granted my client the permanent
residence status.

Dealing with Complex Immigration Matters?

Book a Consultation Today!

 

SAGE WIN

I am Sage, a Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant (RCIC-IRB) with 10 years of experience. I specialize in complex cases. My advocacy skills and extensive knowledge of immigration law have helped thousands of clients achieve their Canadian dreams.

Related News